Is WebMD accurate enough for you?
AUChizad, that is an interesting article; other than this particular article itself, the writer (who is a career medical journalist) has taken a publicly apolitical view of legalization of marijuana. I think that gives him credibility to write from an objective perspective on the subject of legalization. I think he's fairly clear and competent and I might also agree with the assertion claimed but, unfortunately, there's still contrary evidence about mortality when using cannabis (see what GarMan posted above).
And, even the writer states (quoting from his source) that longer term studies are non-existent or nebulous at best.
Marijuana users shouldn't cancel their life insurance policies just yet. Sidney warns that longer-term data may indeed show that marijuana smoking eventually raises the risk of premature death. And if marijuana is legalized, long-term use may become more common. If this is the case, there certainly will be more long-term effects of marijuana use.
Unlike the writer himself, the doctor (Stephen Sidney, MD) that he cites for a major reference, however, has taken a very public stance
for legalization but
strictly for medicinal use only; not recreational use. Here's a link to what ProCon.com says about him:
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=714 Never-the-less he's clearly subjective in his view and I'd expect that subjectivity to be reflected in anything he says.
I think that the jury is still out on whether or not marijuana use causes any deaths (again in the daylight of what GarMan posted above). Even the European source I quoted yesterday admits that mortality rates in marijuana users are greater than non-users in Portugal.
How about this for a thought?
Using death rates as an argument pro or con on legalization of cannabis is somewhat academic. It could be argued that using cannabis
only affects the user. But given that the long-term effects data is scientifically (and medically) disputed perhaps this isn't a good basis for either side because
if there are long-term health effects (and it is legalized) there will be a cost associated with the health-care for those individuals afflicted.Who is going to pay for that? There's no big cannabis company to milk for money (like FedGov did to the Big Tobacco companies in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement for health care costs associated with tobacco use). So that leaves FedGov (and you and me).
That is a big 'if' there but, anyway, I already pay enough taxes.
Has the Libertarian Party made any detailed policy platform on this issue? I've really been looking into it on their main website but they have no plan stated other than broad legalization/decriminalization which,
in my opinion, is a dangerous solution to the problem of drugs in America and is akin to doing brain surgery with a claw hammer.
Again, I think that Ogre pointed in the right direction with the Portuguese solution.
313 Replies
73806 Views